167 réponses à ce sujet

[Merlex]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

You're talking about power building, not role playing. I can see a mage who can use a great sword, but  it's give and take. There has to be limits. If a character is spending time learning spells, then their martial skills suffer. If they are learning to use a sword, then they don't have time to learn as many spells.

I'm all for dropping classes to 2 groups, mages and fighters. Putting lockpicking, trap disarming, and stealth in it's own talent tree(s). I can even see hybrid characters. But talent master skills, should remain with the specific class, the same with specializations. IMHO. I also believe there should be a limit to the number of talent trees a character can learn.

Look if any character could use any skill and cast any spell, it would be lore breaking. What would that do to your 'roleplaying'.

If all you want is for your character to have limits, why not just have self imposed limits, and let people don't want character limits to do want they want?

By the same token, if you want to remove all limits, why not use the GFF editor?

I see nothing lore breaking about a mage that mastered both magic and weapons.  
Really, I suppose it just comes down to how much your willing to suspend your sense of disbelief.
Me personally, I can believe that a mage was just that much of a talented person.

Oh, i see. You want to play Sauron. 'With a wave of his blazing hand or the stoke of his mighty sword; he dropped armies left and right.'

[MichaelStuart]

Merlex wrote...

By the same token, if you want to remove all limits, why not use the GFF editor?

I honestly have no idea what that is?

[Merlex]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

By the same token, if you want to remove all limits, why not use the GFF editor?

I honestly have no idea what that is?

It's a program developed by modders. It allows you to edit saved games. I use it to add or subtract talent and specialization trees from my companions. It gives me flexability in my companion's builds, from game to game. I also edit the stats of items, mostly to make the game more challenging.

[MichaelStuart]

Merlex wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

By the same token, if you want to remove all limits, why not use the GFF editor?

I honestly have no idea what that is?

It's a program developed by modders. It allows you to edit saved games. I use it to add or subtract talent and specialization trees from my companions. It gives me flexability in my companion's builds, from game to game. I also edit the stats of items, mostly to make the game more challenging.

Sounds fun.
Unfortunately every time I use stuff like that, I end up breaking something. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And I would enjoy playing a deaf, blind, mute quadriplegic. Must be a great idea so BioWare must support it.

Really, I told you before - such a character doesn't even make sense FLUFF WISE. This isn't D&D where magic is something you learn. You either have it or you don't. And it manifests by itself.

You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

Do tell, what is the limit of what a game should support?

To me, the limit is when it becomes physical impossible for game developers.

No, the limit is when something is so stupid or lore-breaking that the devs see no value in supporting it whatsoever.

[Pasquale1234]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, the limit is when something is so stupid or lore-breaking that the devs see no value in supporting it whatsoever.

I'd argue that they went too far with gameplay / story segregation in DA2.  I found it difficult to play a mage in DA2 because it just seemed so nonsensical.  I had to rely heavily on the idea that Varric was making it all up to get very far.

That said, I'd have no problems with them allowing a player to build a mage character with no (or unused) magical talents, so long as it was done in a way that properly reflects lore.  An untrained mage can be a danger to everyone around, see: Connor

Some quick thoughts on how it might be reasonably represented in lore, with uncontrolled magical effects randomly firing off, such as:

~ Slow, haste, other magical "discharges" (they aren't really spells because they're not focused or controlled) on some random area around your character, which could effect your party, your enemies, or some combination of both
~ Scorching, frying, freezing everything around your character with random elemental mana discharges
~ Destroying (or adding) enchantments on gear
~ Randomly losing control of your character due to possession (ala Connor)
~ Being attacked (or assisted) by randomly summoned creatures

If they implemented something like that, it should be balanced between advantaging and disadvantaging your party.

Of course, at the beginning of most games, the PC is an adult, and mages have already had some training and know a few spells - so the effects of uncontrolled / unused magic would really only come into play in a couple of cases:

~ A mage character is re-specced and does not invest some minimal number of points in magic training.
~ A mage character does not use any magic for some period of time.  This would represent some buildup of unused mana that would eventually discharge in an uncontrolled way.

As long as it were done in a way that is consistent with lore, it could be an interesting way to further customize character builds.

[Fallstar]

ray.mitch7410 wrote...
One of my mages was all Magic and Constitution. Another was MAG, CON, and enough STR to wear leather armor. Another still was MAG, CON, 26 DEX and was a dagger weilding arcane warrior bloodmage. And yet another was a heavy tank mage. All of these had 16 CUN, of course.

You could make your warrior more rogue-like and your rogue more warrior-like. And your mage however you wanted. DA2 did away with all that.

Yes, those builds are perfectly viable and powerful in DAO, but aside from your MAG/CON one, they aren't really optimal. So my original point that generally optimal DAO builds focussed on two attributes like DA2 still stands. It' just that DA2 made it so that it was blatantly obvious which stats each class should focus on in the early-mid game. That said, a DA2 mage should also start to focus on dex in the late game to increase critical chance. So there was probably more variety in attribute allocation in DA2 than Origins. The entire levelling system as a whole was far more on rails, but the attribute allocation was more varied.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

 

Don't be daft. Rogues using shields and other cross class items when DA2 was first released is what lead to some of the first stupidly OP builds. So classes using items not intended for them, like the mage using a sword, was actually a good idea and wasn't being a retard as you suggest at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, the limit is when something is so stupid or lore-breaking that the devs see no value in supporting it whatsoever.

I'd argue that they went too far with gameplay / story segregation in DA2.  I found it difficult to play a mage in DA2 because it just seemed so nonsensical.  I had to rely heavily on the idea that Varric was making it all up to get very far.

That said, I'd have no problems with them allowing a player to build a mage character with no (or unused) magical talents, so long as it was done in a way that properly reflects lore.  An untrained mage can be a danger to everyone around, see: Connor

Some quick thoughts on how it might be reasonably represented in lore, with uncontrolled magical effects randomly firing off, such as:

~ Slow, haste, other magical "discharges" (they aren't really spells because they're not focused or controlled) on some random area around your character, which could effect your party, your enemies, or some combination of both
~ Scorching, frying, freezing everything around your character with random elemental mana discharges
~ Destroying (or adding) enchantments on gear
~ Randomly losing control of your character due to possession (ala Connor)
~ Being attacked (or assisted) by randomly summoned creatures

If they implemented something like that, it should be balanced between advantaging and disadvantaging your party.

Of course, at the beginning of most games, the PC is an adult, and mages have already had some training and know a few spells - so the effects of uncontrolled / unused magic would really only come into play in a couple of cases:

~ A mage character is re-specced and does not invest some minimal number of points in magic training.
~ A mage character does not use any magic for some period of time.  This would represent some buildup of unused mana that would eventually discharge in an uncontrolled way.

As long as it were done in a way that is consistent with lore, it could be an interesting way to further customize character builds.

But WHY?
Any mage who doesn't learn how to control his magical abilities is a moron (or more likely dead).
Why would you rolepaly a moron?

Do you not see that implementing such a mage would not only be resource intensive (all of hte above has to be programed and tested), but a broken and nonsenical character like that would be interesting to whom exactly?

Frankly I don't see a way to make it consistent with lore( at all) or/and simple to implement.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DuskWarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

 

Don't be daft. Rogues using shields and other cross class items when DA2 was first released is what lead to some of the first stupidly OP builds. So classes using items not intended for them, like the mage using a sword, was actually a good idea and wasn't being a retard as you suggest at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Learn to recognize what someones argument is before you actually reply. (Hint: I'm arguing FOR less restruictions on skills and item)
Will save you the embaarrasment in the future.

[Fallstar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

 

Don't be daft. Rogues using shields and other cross class items when DA2 was first released is what lead to some of the first stupidly OP builds. So classes using items not intended for them, like the mage using a sword, was actually a good idea and wasn't being a retard as you suggest at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Learn to recognize what someones argument is before you actually reply. (Hint: I'm arguing FOR less restruictions on skills and item)
Will save you the embaarrasment in the future.

What you are arguing for is completely irrelevant. I was addressing your statement regarding it being retarded to play a mage who chose not to use much magic.

I was saying that if you wanted to, for example, role play a mage who used swords, shields and other warrior equipment, before the patches DA encouraged that. So it wasn't 'retarded' at all, as you initially suggested.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:50 .

[Pasquale1234]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
But WHY?
Any mage who doesn't learn how to control his magical abilities is a moron (or more likely dead).
Why would you rolepaly a moron?

For the same sorts of reasons that StM would role-play a coward?  Or that anyone would role-play a character with low intelligence or any sort of sub-optimal build?  For the overall experience, and to see how the game world reacts.

Do you not see that implementing such a mage would not only be resource intensive (all of hte above has to be programed and tested), but a broken and nonsenical character like that would be interesting to whom exactly?

I'm well aware of the costs involved.  I am, after all, a software engineer IRL.

There are many sub-optimal builds that people enjoy playing for their own reasons.  And, frankly, it's pretty hard for me to argue against features that would expand player agency, regardless of how silly I think they are.

Frankly I don't see a way to make it consistent with lore( at all) or/and simple to implement.

I see plenty of ways to make it reasonably consistent with lore, and suggested a few - how costly it would be would depend on exactly how it was implemented.

That said, it certainly isn't something I would advocate.  In fact, my primary purpose was to point out the in-lore reality of ignoring magical training for a mage and instead trying to make the character a warrior.  Random magic discharges that may harm your party or help your enemies?  Occasionally losing control of your own character due to possession?  I think those are pretty serious consequences of trying to deny a mage's innate abilities.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DuskWarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

 

Don't be daft. Rogues using shields and other cross class items when DA2 was first released is what lead to some of the first stupidly OP builds. So classes using items not intended for them, like the mage using a sword, was actually a good idea and wasn't being a retard as you suggest at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Learn to recognize what someones argument is before you actually reply. (Hint: I'm arguing FOR less restruictions on skills and item)
Will save you the embaarrasment in the future.

What you are arguing for is completely irrelevant. I was addressing your statement regarding it being retarded to play a mage who chose not to use much magic.

I was saying that if you wanted to, for example, role play a mage who used swords, shields and other warrior equipment, before the patches DA encouraged that. So it wasn't 'retarded' at all, as you initially suggested.

It is relevant. How can you oppose my arguments if you have no clue what I'm talking about - and you obviously don't.

It is retarded to play mage who uses no magic at all. It makes no sense and it's lore-breaking.
A mage that knows a buissness end of a sword? Makes sense.
A fighter that knows how to use a bow or open locks? Makes sense.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Pasquale1234 wrote...
For the same sorts of reasons that StM would role-play a coward?  Or that anyone would role-play a character with low intelligence or any sort of sub-optimal build?  For the overall experience, and to see how the game world reacts.

Sub-optimal build? That's power-gamibng and has nothing to do with roleplaying.

And frankly, if you want to roleplay a contender for the darwin award, then the only proper way to roleplay him would be let him die.

I'm well aware of the costs involved.  I am, after all, a software engineer IRL.

There are many sub-optimal builds that people enjoy playing for their own reasons.  And, frankly, it's pretty hard for me to argue against features that would expand player agency, regardless of how silly I think they are.

To a limit. Player agency is desirable, but isn't the goal in itself. Especially not if it's only "for the lulz".

And there is difference between a sub-optimal build and deliberately going for something redicolous AND lore-breaking.

[Fallstar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

 

Don't be daft. Rogues using shields and other cross class items when DA2 was first released is what lead to some of the first stupidly OP builds. So classes using items not intended for them, like the mage using a sword, was actually a good idea and wasn't being a retard as you suggest at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Learn to recognize what someones argument is before you actually reply. (Hint: I'm arguing FOR less restruictions on skills and item)
Will save you the embaarrasment in the future.

What you are arguing for is completely irrelevant. I was addressing your statement regarding it being retarded to play a mage who chose not to use much magic.

I was saying that if you wanted to, for example, role play a mage who used swords, shields and other warrior equipment, before the patches DA encouraged that. So it wasn't 'retarded' at all, as you initially suggested.

It is relevant. How can you oppose my arguments if you have no clue what I'm talking about - and you obviously don't.

It is retarded to play mage who uses no magic at all. It makes no sense and it's lore-breaking.
A mage that knows a buissness end of a sword? Makes sense.
A fighter that knows how to use a bow or open locks? Makes sense.

Did you miss this part of my post?

"I was addressing your statement regarding it being retarded to play a mage who chose not to use much magic."

That is what you were saying, yes? So I was perfectly clear about what you were talking about. It's just that the game rewards you for that style of play. From the standpoint of role playing and lore, yes it's not what you'd expect.

But in game, you are actively rewarded for playing like that, meaning it isn't 'retarded' in the slightest.

[MichaelStuart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It is retarded to play mage who uses no magic at all. It makes no sense and it's lore-breaking.

Why is so lore breaking?
Just because someone is born with the potential to do something, doesn't mean they know how to do it.
For example. I assume you were born with the ability to make sounds. Were you also born with the knowledge about how to turn these sounds into words or did you have to have someone teach you?
Yes, I will admit that is possible for someone to self teach themselfs any skill, buts who many people can invent a basic skill set without any help?
Which comes back to question. Why is it lore breaking that a mage, who was hidden from the Circle, unable to find any apostates, wouldn't know how to cast spells?

[Yrkoon]

I wouldn't say that playing a mage who uses no magic is "lore breaking", mainly because there's nothing in the lore that dictates that mages must fling spells or else GTFO.  If anything, (Dragon Age's) lore leans in the exact opposite direction.  It's quite common for mages to refrain from using magic, for various reasons.

Being a mage but never using magic is, however, mechanics/rules breaking. Especially in a game like Dragon Age, which has character classes, and an experience point system that sees you advancing to high levels in your chosen class. It makes no sense from a gameplay perspective that a 1st level mage can  eventually become a 25th level mage without ever casting spells. Logic dictates that  this could never happen - That you can't advance as a mage without practicing your mage-craft.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 septembre 2012 - 02:44 .

[jbrand2002uk]

its also lore breaking in DA2 because it is explicitly stated in DA2 if you are a mage that your character was trained extensively by his/her father and is re-iterated at several points especially in Legacy and as Yrkoon said in any game that uses a class based system a mage class's strengths are geared towards spell casting just as certain races in skyrim are geared towards using magic(such as a breton).

So if you dont intend on using magic whats the point in picking a mage it would be akin to picking a Warrior when you dont want to fight at all

[MichaelStuart]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

its also lore breaking in DA2 because it is explicitly stated in DA2 if you are a mage that your character was trained extensively by his/her father and is re-iterated at several points especially in Legacy and as Yrkoon said in any game that uses a class based system a mage class's strengths are geared towards spell casting just as certain races in skyrim are geared towards using magic(such as a breton).

So if you dont intend on using magic whats the point in picking a mage it would be akin to picking a Warrior when you dont want to fight at all

Mostly for Role Playing reasons. As a mage I would have to deal with problems non mages wouldn't (Like demons trying to possess me in my sleep)

I feel the need to repeat the whole point I have been trying to make.
The way the current class system works makes attributes pointless. I suggest getting getting rid of classes altogether (mages would be a race option) and letting us build our skills without restrictions (my spelless mage was just a example)
If some builds become more powerful than others, so be it. Balance is not need in a single player game.  

[Cultist]

We already got mage-warrior hybrid, Arcane Warrior, and the result was patch to fix this overpowered hybrid class.
IMO, it is better to have variety withing certain class, than have hybrids.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DuskWarden wrote...
Did you miss this part of my post?

"I was addressing your statement regarding it being retarded to play a mage who chose not to use much magic."

How many times bust I repeat myself and bold stuff.
My statement was about mages who use no magic AT ALL. Not about mages who use some magic nad have some other skills learned.
Learn to friggin read.

So not only do you not read, you're also misquoting me and twisting my arguments.

[Lotion Soronarr]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It is retarded to play mage who uses no magic at all. It makes no sense and it's lore-breaking.

Why is so lore breaking?
Just because someone is born with the potential to do something, doesn't mean they know how to do it.
For example. I assume you were born with the ability to make sounds. Were you also born with the knowledge about how to turn these sounds into words or did you have to have someone teach you?
Yes, I will admit that is possible for someone to self teach themselfs any skill, buts who many people can invent a basic skill set without any help?
Which comes back to question. Why is it lore breaking that a mage, who was hidden from the Circle, unable to find any apostates, wouldn't know how to cast spells?

Because - as previously stated - magic comes to the surface naturally. It manifests itself wather you want it or not.
Every mage can use magic. Every mage will have it manifested. But those that do not learn how to control it will die.

And this is pretty much common knowledge.
So your mage, who spontaniusly sets fire to the house he's in or unleashes lighting or whatever is going to be perfectly fine with not having any control over these destructive powers that are a danger to both him and the others? And your'e telling me that is NOT retarded?

Friggin no. A spellless mage is nothing more than a stupid gimmick/novelty anyway. Your idea sucks.

[Lotion Soronarr]

MichaelStuart wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

So if you dont intend on using magic whats the point in picking a mage it would be akin to picking a Warrior when you dont want to fight at all

Mostly for Role Playing reasons. As a mage I would have to deal with problems non mages wouldn't (Like demons trying to possess me in my sleep)

So pick a mage and play a mage.
Martial skill has no impact on the beforementioned problem.

You just want to play a spellless mage for novelty sake. To be a super-special snowflake.

[philippe willaume]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

So if you dont intend on using magic whats the point in picking a mage it would be akin to picking a Warrior when you dont want to fight at all

Mostly for Role Playing reasons. As a mage I would have to deal with problems non mages wouldn't (Like demons trying to possess me in my sleep)

So pick a mage and play a mage.
Martial skill has no impact on the beforementioned problem.

You just want to play a spellless mage for novelty sake. To be a super-special snowflake.

hello
I would agree with you that it is not that advanced as a concept. no.

I think the point he is trying to makes is that before you got someone to teach you magic you had to do something else.
(Though DA lore does not let us beleive that it is easily achievable and the likely outcome are abominating or being possessed at an early stage in life.)

From a mechanics stand point, as long as attributes or skills are directly tied to a class, it is much more likely to create either uber or unter concept.

The easiest way out is for the performaces to be based on the char level, and to have skill and attribute have class specific benefits on top of  the commons benefits that all class would benefits.
phil
 

Modifié par philippe willaume, 03 septembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[Merlex]

MichaelStuart wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

its also lore breaking in DA2 because it is explicitly stated in DA2 if you are a mage that your character was trained extensively by his/her father and is re-iterated at several points especially in Legacy and as Yrkoon said in any game that uses a class based system a mage class's strengths are geared towards spell casting just as certain races in skyrim are geared towards using magic(such as a breton).

So if you dont intend on using magic whats the point in picking a mage it would be akin to picking a Warrior when you dont want to fight at all

Mostly for Role Playing reasons. As a mage I would have to deal with problems non mages wouldn't (Like demons trying to possess me in my sleep)

I feel the need to repeat the whole point I have been trying to make.
The way the current class system works makes attributes pointless. I suggest getting getting rid of classes altogether (mages would be a race option) and letting us build our skills without restrictions (my spelless mage was just a example)
If some builds become more powerful than others, so be it. Balance is not need in a single player game.  

If you are playing on PC, there are mods on Nexus that will let you achieve your goal. DA2 Multi-class, and various restriction remover mods.

Modifié par Merlex, 03 septembre 2012 - 07:31 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Frankly, what I want most of all is for the ability to play CHARACTERS. Not classES.

In other words, I create a character and pick any perk/skill/feat attribute makes sense for him (and isn't lore-breaking).

Exponential level power, attributes, fixed and limited classes - they all are murder for roleplaying and proper world building.

All attributes should matter. I loved that in D&D. Scores only went to 18 normally and when you rolled a character - just like in real life- he wouldn't change much. You'd only get like 5-6 extra attribute points to spend.

Even for a fighter, dex was important for evasion/dodge and reflex saves.
INT helepd with skills and had effect in conversations and game.
Wisdom helped with will saves and had other effects.